221–230 of 381 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Care to provide source? There is some info here: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/world/asia/india-coronavi... The US is #1 in infections for a reason: we are doing it wrong.
>The US is #1 in infections for a reason: we are doing it wrong. It's more likely that we're testing far more than most countries than "we're doing it wrong."
source?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Care to provide source? There is some info here: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/world/asia/india-coronavi... The US is #1 in infections for a reason: we are doing it wrong.
>The US is #1 in infections for a reason: we are doing it wrong. It's more likely that we're testing far more than most countries than "we're doing it wrong."
I have a lot of relatives back in India who are doctors, and our hospitals aren't overwhelmed. There are very few cases. And they test every ICU admit for coronavirus.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
India going all Wuhan on the virus. The difference between India and the US particularly is that it's lockdown lite in USA while it's full on there. You can't take a walk, you can't drive farther than 3 KM, cops will kick your butt and impound your vehicle. And the population by and large listens, while we have morons here who want lockdown eased to get haircuts.
Heh, families in India have started doing haircuts at home. Some people get it right, and some people don't ... it's not even funny anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously a lockdown can cause the number of cases to go down. There's no mystery here. There are many countries doing the same. Yes, it is "supposed" to flatten the curve always keeping some manageable number of people infected. So if you reduce the number of cases any further you are doing it wrong; because no, you won't extinguish the virus, you'll only prolong the lockdown.
> Obviously a lockdown can cause the number of cases to go down. Maybe I'm just ignorant, but could you explain how a lockdown is supposed to decrease the total number of cases rather than just prolong it? A lockdown does not make a population more resilient to a virus. It just reduces contagion vectors so it spreads more slowly. The virus still spreads, though. Eventually, enough of the population will catch the vir…
Once the number of cases is small enough, you can identify and quarantine all of them. With a good enough testing infrastructure this gets easier. You can then have a "selective" lockdown only around actual cases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm only worried that the lockdown is going to significantly affect the poorer communities worse at the expense of richer folks. Sorry, what? The lockdown isn't about the rich or the poor. It is mostly about containing a deadly disease we don't fully understand yet. It is for the medics but also mostly to keep the social fabric intact. No one wants this to descent into chaos and madness without controls in-place. A…
"can be disastrous for a country as dense as India and for incubation periods as long as they are for a rabidly contagious SARS-CoV-2." Isn't the whole point of the article that this isn't the case?
The author rather paints a skeptical view of the numbers coming out of India.
I generally have a very poor opinion of the govt officials in my country owing to some very bad past experiences in India. But this time I too was pleasantly surprised. My friend lives in a very populated area in Delhi called Tilak nagar and he told me in feb end iirc that the house opposite his has a huge plaque on it that says *Quarantine, this house has a covid patient" put on by police. This was the time when nob…
This should not be a mystery at all. India locked down entire country (no state rights in Epidemics laws), despite federal structure. Very few things can be bought, even Amazon is only delivering "essentials." But more importantly, India has been contact tracing like a greedy algorithm on steroids since case #1. There was a positive case in a condo nearby mine. The entire condominium building and adjacent locality is…
India going all Wuhan on the virus. The difference between India and the US particularly is that it's lockdown lite in USA while it's full on there. You can't take a walk, you can't drive farther than 3 KM, cops will kick your butt and impound your vehicle. And the population by and large listens, while we have morons here who want lockdown eased to get haircuts.
Cops have stopped speed enforcement in my area, at least the dedicated speed traps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most Western nations are doing fine. There's really just a dozen or so countries that have been hit hard, and even then the impact has been uneven within the hardest hit countries.
The US and the UK are seeing a massive number of deaths.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Care to provide source? There is some info here: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/world/asia/india-coronavi... The US is #1 in infections for a reason: we are doing it wrong.
>The US is #1 in infections for a reason: we are doing it wrong. It's more likely that we're testing far more than most countries than "we're doing it wrong."
South Korea's positive test rates are somewhere in the single digits, the US is around 20-30%. That's not a sign we're "testing far more than most countries."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Care to provide source? There is some info here: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/world/asia/india-coronavi... The US is #1 in infections for a reason: we are doing it wrong.
>The US is #1 in infections for a reason: we are doing it wrong. It's more likely that we're testing far more than most countries than "we're doing it wrong."
As a relatively rich country, the US has a natural advantage compared to poorer countries, but compared to other countries that have a similar per-capita GDP, that doesn't seem like an obvious conclusion. Hell, given how badly the creation of the original assays by the CDC went, and how distributed the healthcare system is, on top of the current political climate, the opposite conclusion seems warranted.